So what`s everyone take on this people?Lets put it step by step:

-The reach is their land cause they where the first.

-The Nords started conquering left and right and defeated them and took The Reach from them.

-These Bretons who where there first do not accept the Nord ruling(nor should anyone whos been conquered) and decide to take back there land.

Now its all well and good till here, the Nords at this point in time are obviously the bad guys.But after decades of war they turn to Daedric lords and even worse Hagravens.They sacrificed a huge part of there humanity by siding with them, just so they can take back there lands.

Now where does that leave them?I would say still good.If they get there lands back i can see them getting rid of Hagravens and the like.What do you guys think?

it is quite obvious they are BAD.

I like the forsworn, they are interesting and I generally don't like the oppressive nord ruling class of Markarth especially those silver-bloods.

Their cause is just, but the ways by which they pursue is is cause for grave concern. So there may be no simple answer to that question.

One of the few people who understood Hannibal Lecter may have said it best: good and evil qualities can exist side by side in the same person.

It falls to only certain economic philosophies to believe that land is a property and specifically a property of the "natives", in itself a ridiculously complex term to define. People who will not accept the natives should not be permitted to settle, likewise natives who will not accept change, especially in the form of different races, should not be permitted stay. Whether on Earth or Nirn, resources are limited, and civilizations, whether primitive or advanced, have no more claim to their planet's surface space than any other. In essence, the Forsworn are as evil as the Nords they despise.

All that said, the current rulers may be oppressive, whereas the Forsworn are downright genocidal. While neither is desirable, freedom is much more likely to arise from the former than the latter. I still prefer corrupt taxation to being slaughtered without cause by practioners of the dark arts while merely attempting to pick flowers.

Hard to say whether they're "good" or "bad"!

It's a pity they weren't more developed as a Race/Faction in game.

If the Forsworn hid in Ancient Reachmen Ruins, and did not worship the bad Daedra, I would feel a small tinge of Guilt for attempted extermination of every last Forsworn within the Game World.

I enjoy helping the Reachmen by clearing Mines of Draugr, Forsworn, and Silverblood Mercenaries. I even let Melka live, even if She should be in a Cage in Windhelm as the very last Hagraven in Skyrim for many of My characters.

Bad.. Bad bad bad.. They worship Daedra (and work freely with hagravens). Briarharts have their living hearts removed to be replaced by an herb.. heart.. thing. I may play an assasin (or occasionally werewolf or vampire) and even they kill Forsworn on sight. They are fanatical barbarians living in the past, just like the Blades. Kill them and be done with it.

That mess about " the land don't belong to anyone " is a load of skeever dung. The lands of every area through time has been defended by cultures that reside in them. It's territorial claim. These are the lands my people reside, thrive to live upon, cherish and will defend to the death to protect against the aggression of others that embark to invade.

The Forsworn are the Reachmen. Their Breton ancestors of High Rock settled the mountains of the West Reach, along with the Orcs. Of which, they were influenced by the Orc culture. As well as Nordic culture and accept both Nords and Orcs into their ranks.

Being somewhat of a melting pot, they adapted the support from anywhere they could to ensure the sovereignty of the West Reach. That just happened to include the powerful witches of the area, as it was their homeland as well. So, it was in everyone's best interest to come together and fight.

This.

I'd say non-Forsworn Reachmen are the most affected in spite of being content with the Nords ruling them. What I disliked is the Silverbloods' hypocrisy in supporting the Stormcloaks when they represent exactly what the Stormcloaks are against. Just replace Nords with Reachmen and Imperials with Nords and it's pretty similar. Even though I disapprove of the Forsworn's actions I loved releasing Madanach and killing off the Silverbloods (Thongvor included).

Both sides of the Forsworn/Nord conflict are awful, though, there's no denying that.

Forsworn aren't really that bad (though you saw what happened when they actually DID take control of the Reach), they remind me of Native Americans. It was their land (so they say at least) and the Nords kicked them off of it. It happens, and it's not always for the most noble of reasons either. Regardless, if the Forsworn attack me, or any other citizen of the Reach (mainly Nord citizens) then I won't hesitate to kill them and take their soul.

quick question, but at the risk of sounding extremely stupid, when the nords first came from atmora and settled, was the land already theirs (the bretons), or was it the snow elves?

Who first held claim to the 'reach'?

The way I understand it, the Aldemri were there first. Then the region was lost to the first Empire and the Aldemri reclaimed the area. One would need to research that a little more. I'm running from sheer memory and may be a little off.

This.

Bad.

They act as though they represent the people of the reach but the real Reachmen are just a branch of Breton whilst the Forsworn are a separatist group who have unholy practices and believes.

Most reachmen disagree with the forsworn.

They're the remains of the old witchmen of the area that refused to integrate when society "civilized", they perform blood sacrifices, aligned with Molag Bal, and attack foreigners regardless of their affiliations.

High Rock doesn't want them, and neither does Skyrim, and I don't blame either one.

where does the falmer factor into this?

I'm afraid you will have to go to the Lore Forum for a more detailed insight, and/or read through the Imperial Library.

aah okay, no worries

Good, bad, I'm the one with the Thu'm,

Kidding aside, no matter the claim the Forsworn are Hagraven dupes.

The Forsworn/Nords/Silverblood conflict is one of those all too common things where no one is in the right, no one is good, all are bad.

Understanding is a three-edged sword after all.

Falmer and Dwemer were there first. Nords showed up, kicked the falmer out, conquered all of High Rock some of Hammerfell, Cyrodiil, and Morrowind. Eventually they lost those holdings in 1e420. Some time around 1e1030 when Hestra of the first empire showed up to conquer the reach again, the forsworn formed out of some of the people living in the reach at the time. And they've been in conflict with the people in control of the land ever since.

so, seeing as the falmer and dwemer aren't really around anymore, could you say the reach is the nords'? or when the nords conquered high rock ect, did they just kick out the bretons living there?

edit: what im trying to say is, did the bretons come to the reach after the nordic empire fell apart?

EDIT:Mispost (I really need to get a better phone) ingore

There are Nords in the forsworn? Could you point one out please because I'v never met one

Technically the forsworn heritage is nearly every race.

http://uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Pocket_Guide_to_the_Empire,_1st_Edition/High_Rock